ArticleBrazilian dental journal2025
A comparative investigation of the quality of radiographs produced by portable handheld and fixed x-ray units.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of image quality in conventional intraoral radiographs acquired with a stationary intraoral tomosynthesis system.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of handheld portable intraoral diagnostic X-ray equipment on radiographic quality and to compare their radiographs with radiographs obtained using fixed intraoral X-ray equipment. For brightness, noise, and uniformity, radiographs of an acrylic block were obtained with two complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors (Digora Toto and Snapshot). Six radiographs for each sensor were obtained using the Eagle handheld portable X-ray equipment set at 60 kVp, 2.5 mA, and 0.45 s. Then, six radiographs were obtained with the Focus fixed X-ray equipment set at 60 kVp, 7 mA, and 0.16 s. Mean and standard deviation of the gray values were evaluated. For contrast, radiographs of an aluminum step-wedge were obtained using both sensors, X-ray equipment, and the aforementioned acquisition parameters. The percentage of contrast variation was evaluated. The comparison between the equipment was evaluated for its influence on radiographic quality using Student's t-test (p < 0.05). The handheld portable X-ray equipment produced radiographs with higher brightness and lower contrast regardless of the CMOS sensor used (p<0.0001). Noise levels were higher with the handheld portable X-ray equipment than with the fixed X-ray equipment using the Digora Toto system, and lower with the Snapshot system (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for uniformity. Therefore, radiographs obtained with a handheld portable intraoral diagnostic X-ray equipment have higher brightness and lower contrast compared to those obtained with fixed X-ray equipment. While the effect on noise levels varies depending on the digital system used, the uniformity remains unaffected by the type of X-ray equipment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.